CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Beyond 120 Days, No Right to File Written Statement – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, today underscored the non-negotiability of statutory time limits in commercial disputes. The case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan revolved around the issue of condoning the delay in filing a written statement in a loan default matter.

The Crux of Legal Point: At the heart of the judgment was the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Specifically, the matter concerned whether a delay beyond the statutorily stipulated 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute could be condoned.

Background and Factual Matrix: ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, approached the High Court challenging the Commercial Court’s decision that condoned the respondent's delay in filing a written statement. The dispute originated from a loan default by Chauhan, against whom the bank sought recovery. The bank's contention was based on the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in commercial disputes.

Justice Kaur delved into the case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day period for filing written statements in commercial disputes, as per Supreme Court directives in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The judgment scrutinized the correctness of service of summons and the implication of the mediation process on the filing timeline.

The Court observed the Commercial Court's oversight in its failure to rigorously examine the reasons for the delay. It stressed the need for adherence to prescribed timelines, highlighting the importance of speedy and efficient justice in commercial litigation.

Verdict: Overturning the Commercial Court's decision, the High Court directed that the respondent’s written statement, filed beyond the permissible period, should not be taken on record. This decision firmly reiterates the judiciary's stance on the sanctity of procedural timelines in commercial matters.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2024

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan

Latest Legal News